About your Search

20121226
20130103
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
speakership looking over his shoulder as the camera shows of eric cantor right behind him ready -- >> but cantor is with him now, isn't he? hasn't his number two guy joined him? >> he's his number two guy and supporter, but he's the spiritual leader of the tea party caucus there, and that's the group that seems to be calling the shots right now in the house of representatives. >> let's talk about the republican party. let's try to be really analytical here. you know, to me two things happen in every election. one, somebody wins, somebody loses, and then there's the other part of every election, a signal is sent, which way the country wants to go. it's a verdict that goes out to the people who got re-elected. careful, buddy, careful, lady, you could be next. isn't there a sense in the republican party that obama won a comfortable re-election? >> yeah but -- >> yeah but. >> that was boehner's mistake. >> he thought that was reality. >> he thought that was reality, and he learned the other night that it wasn't. >> republicans don't see it in that world. what covers the sky in their
of the fiscal cliff deal. speaker boehner wanted it past but eric cantor was against it. it turns out the tension goes a lot farther back for two other members of the caucus. it starts with darrell issa who voted against the fiscal cliff. >> i'm with eric cantor. i can't vote for it in its current form. the senate and the president and vice president failed to meet their obligation. their own stated obligation which was to bring us a balanced bill. one that had tax adjustment, yes. but also had spending cuts. this one fails at that and fails badly. >> so enter ohio republican steve latourette who wasn't jazzed but took the plunge and voted yes. >> i went to the same high school as congressman issa but we haven't agreed on much since. >> did you agree in high school? >> i didn't see him a lot in class, so i don't know. >> somehow i doubt they'll show up together at the reunion. one point of agreement, both congressmen suggested that new year's eve was partially to blame for what the senate put together. >> i think it's a little unreasonable for senator reid to say something they produc
leader mitch mcconnell marshaled the votes, the deal appealed squash by a revolt led by eric cantor. although his remarks were brief, they sent shock waves through his conference, which was already extremely skeptical of the agreement, and perhaps looking for a leader. conservative opposition to the agreement stems from a host of issues, including that the deal does not include any spending cuts, would significantly add to the deficit and raise taxes on those making more than $400,000 a year. while the republicans were meeting earlier today, the congressional budget office came out with its scoring of the bill passed by the senate. another four dollars trillion in deficit spending is what they scored its ad for the next nine years, about $330 billion in additional spending. the senate did not pass any spending cuts. those were pushed down for about two months. that is where we stand now, waiting for the house to come back into session. waiting for the house conference to come back from their meeting. perhaps the leadership will speak to the press. we're ready for that. we spoke to o
it and send it back is what eric cantor and others wanted. the problem with sending it back is there would be no one to send it to. the senate left the building. the house would have gone back and said we're going to keep our apbldz in. what speaker boehner did is join the minority of republicans. he voted, so 85 republicans said yes, but 172 said no. essentially they violated their own unwritten hastert rule and used the majority of democrats to pass this bill. longtime conservatives see it as a rau for the president. >>steve: even in the leadership of the republican party you've got john boehner and paul ryan voting for it. then you've got eric cantor, the majority whip, voting against it. at the core, all the republicans had to hold their nose because they do not as a party like the idea of taxes going up on anybody. now the way it stands is if you are very successful and you make at least $400,000 a year, your taxes are going to go up to about 40%. for everybody watching this program now, your payroll taxes are going up. last year it was about 4.2% exactly, and starting this morning it
republicans and john boehner and eric cantor in particular. jon: that's what we're talking about. let me play for you what senator tom harkin said just a bit ago. we opened the senate session this hour with senate majority leader harry reid who basically said we're still talking but no progress or no real progress to report. didn't say much very frankly. then senator harkin took the microphone. here is what he had to say. >> if we're going to have a deal, the deal has to favor the middle class, the real middle class, those making 30, 50, 60, $70,000 a year. that is the real middle class in america. and as i see this thing developing, quite frankly, as i have said before, no deal is better than a bad deal. this looks like a very bad deal the way this is shaping up. jon: ron, what about that plan b bill that the house passed or you know, what was considering, that would have raised taxes on those making a million dollars and up? >> well that is what is confusing me is that we want, republicans want to save taxpayers as many taxpayers as possible. we want to save them as at the same time we're l
, outmaneuvered, outcreated and if they don't, the, this eric cantor. he decides he is voting no. part of the leadership. lori: not until there were enough yes votes to get requisite approval for the deal. melissa: what would your advice be? >> i think republicans would he will be well-served to discover if they are a political party or simply a fund-raising origination and a branding mechanism. because they seem to have no ground operation which is essential if you will be a political party and you're going to it up candidates for president. they don't seem to have any principles they won't abandon. they seem to have no vision they will share with the rest of us. you i think they're really at cliff, they're at the precipice no longer being a relevant political party. lori: that is huge statement, lou. melissa: could they use the opportunity, whether the debt ceiling or --. lori: sorry to come in but the social issues. you know what i mean. do they need to do better job connecting with the general public on social side of things, gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research? >> actually
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)